SHORTER ARTICLES AND DISCUSSION 



THE MENDELIAN VIEW OF MELANIN FORMATION 



Apparently there is no danger that the biological world will 

 suffer permanent paralysis as the result of general acquiescence 

 in hypotheses which have recently gained wide acceptance but 

 for which fundamental proof seems not to be forthcoming. 

 Especially is this the case when biologists whose special fields 

 of work give them only an incidental interest in Men deli an and 

 de Vriesian affairs will take the trouble to attach their batteries 

 to the wires leading into the Mendelian field in order to counter- 

 act the paralyzing effect of what they regard as intellectual 

 poison. I am a firm believer in the value of scientific trespass. 

 Very frequently a group of scientists become moribund because 

 they have no one to criticise them. An outsider who finds that 

 his own work touches that of such a group may render real 

 service by pointing out relations which those immediately con- 

 cerned have overlooked and may thus cause readjustments of 

 theory and hypothesis that are frequently much needed. 



An excellent case of this kind is found in Riddle's interesting 

 article in the liiological Hidhlin for May, 1909. 1 One can 

 hardly read this article without suspecting that Riddle is pur- 

 posely somewhat extreme in his attack on the current interpre- 

 tations of Mendelian phenomena in order to get a response from 

 those who are responsible for these interpretations. It appears 

 to the writer that Riddle attacks very successfully the de 

 Vriesian interpretation of these phenomena. Unfortunately, 

 however, he utterly eon fuses Mendelian facts with de Vriesian 

 and Weismannian theories — hypotheses, rather, and attempts to 

 throw both facts and hypotheses out of court. Riddle is not 

 entirely to blame in this matter, however, for the de Vriesians 

 generally have made the same mistake. If Riddle succeeds in 

 arousing Mendelianists to a realization of the fact that the facts 

 of Mendelian inheritance are not dependent on de Vriesian 

 hypotheses he will have rendered a distinct service to biology, 



1909, 



